The contours of the political
landscape are becoming
increasingly inhospitable to
Dems

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
The contours of the political
landscape are becoming
increasingly inhospitable to
Democrats. This is partly because
of what Democrats are, partly
because of what they have done to
themselves with campaign finance
reform, partly because demographic
changes are weakening one of their
signature issues and partly because
of a conflict between their ideology
and fiscal facts.

James Carville, political consultant
and agitator, warns his fellow
Democrats that voters "won't trust a
party to defend America if it can't
defend itself." Unfortunately, he
says, "Democrats by their nature
tend to look weak." Unsurprisingly,
Carville thinks this defect reflects a
virtue: "We" -- Democrats -- "tend
to see six sides to the Pentagon." Meaning Democrats comprehend the
complexity of things, which renders them rhetorically mushy.

Carville believes, preposterously, that Democrats are "reluctant to judge."
Actually, they are hair-trigger hanging judges, promiscuously ascribing to
Republicans sinister objectives such as the repeal of the 13th Amendment and
the denial of driver's licenses to women. But Carville has a piece of a point:
Many Democrats, although as dogmatic as John Calvin, are also philosophical
relativists. They seem reactive, a party of protest, more capable of saying
what they do not like -- George W. Bush, his judicial nominees, tax cuts and
other works -- than what they like. Hence Democrats are perceived as the
servants of grievance groups. A consequence of the McCain-Feingold
campaign finance reforms will be an exacerbation of that perception.

Democrats' ideological aversion to the rich, and the Democratic itch to
legislate equality, prompted them to support McCain-Feingold. Now they
have awakened from their dogmatic slumbers to the consequences of banning
"soft money" -- the unregulated and hence often large contributions not for the
election of specific candidates but for voter turnout and other party-building
activities.

Democrats divide their time between deploring anything that benefits rich
people and standing in front of rich people, like Oliver Twist with his porridge
bowl, begging for more. In an article on McCain-Feingold ("The Democratic
Party Suicide Bill") in the July/August issue of the Atlantic Monthly, Seth Gitell
notes that in the 1996 election cycle, when Democrats raised $122 million in
soft money, a fifth of it -- $25 million -- came from just 168 people.

Republicans have a large advantage in raising "hard" dollars, which are for
specific candidates and are covered by annual limits. Democrats, deprived of
soft money, will be forced to rely on paid issue advocacy by their "groups" --
environmentalists, gun control advocates, the pro-abortion lobby.
Dependence on the groups will cost the party control of its message and pull
the party to the left, away from swing voters.

In their reactive mode, Democrats practice reactionary liberalism. For
example, their idea for making Social Security solvent for the baby boomers'
retirement is to oppose Bush's proposal for partial privatization of the system.
But Mitch Daniels, who after more than two years as head of the Office of
Management and Budget is heading home to run for governor of Indiana,
offers a parting observation: America has reached a "tipping point" in the
argument about partial privatization, because there are now more younger
voters strongly skeptical about the viability of the current system than there
are older voters strongly averse to changing it.

Furthermore, Daniels discerns a paradox that will increasingly bedevil
Democrats. One reason there are two parties is to accommodate two broadly
different valuations of freedom and equality: Republicans tend to favor the
former, Democrats the latter. But, says Daniels, Democrats have a stake in
substantial, even increasing, income inequality.

This is because Democrats favor a more ambitious, high-spending federal
government. Almost half of the government's revenue comes from the
personal income tax, and, in 2000, 37.4 percent of income taxes were paid
by the wealthiest 1 percent of income earners.

The liberals' conundrum is that their aspirations for omniprovident government
depend on a large and growing supply of very rich people, whom Democrats
deplore in principle but enjoy in practice. Rich people are the reason federal
revenue surged into surplus during the boom times of the latter half of the
Clinton presidency as income inequality widened and there was a gusher of
revenue from capital gains taxes. The liberals' conundrum is condign
punishment for the discordance between the way they talk and the way they
live.

Sociologist David Riesman suggested there are broadly two kinds of political
people. Gyroscopic people have internal guidance systems. Radar people
steer according to signals bounced off others. Today, Democrats are more a
radar party, Republicans are more a gyroscopic party, and stronger.